Archaeological culture

As archaeological culture is a spatially and temporally limited section of the material culture is referred to in the first place. So you called not cultural or socio- political entities, even if the cartographic processing suggests this. The distinction was arbitrary in most cases and, if she persists in the research, used as a convention.

Accruals

As a classification unit archaeological culture was formerly an indispensable tool for the work of archaeologists. The term is, however, now only used for provisional classification as a working hypothesis and has since been mainly in the prehistory and early historical terminology and systematics, and especially for the Paleolithic through the neutral, culturally and historically unencumbered term " techno complex" replaced.

Culture change

In order to establish an immigration archaeological, fundamental changes (ceramics, construction ) must be perceived in the material culture and economy within a cultural area, preferably coupled with references to the area of ​​origin of migrants ( Harsema 1987, 104; Prien 2005, 304-316 ).

According to E. Drenth and Eric Lohof but is generally of cultural continuity (as well as Immobiltät ) can be assumed. With the refinement of the chronology of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age during the last decades, the awareness has grown that an archaeological culture of the known established by Vere Gordon Childe thesis has an inherently dynamic nature, so that cultural changes are normally not as a result migration can be explained.

Attempt an annotated definition

In material culture refers to all observable human agency - the archeology pays special attention to archaeological finds. Material culture include, for example pots and dress pins, but also ornament pattern, house floor plans or the way in which applied graves or dead are embedded. These features are subject to a development and occur in geographically limited areas distinguishable on. In addition, correlations between certain characteristics can be observed, even though these characteristics to each other not technically require. So can occur together with house shape Y, for example, at a certain time in a certain area pottery style X. Such correlations of several characteristics form the basis for the description of archaeological cultures. Conventions on a possible minimum number such correlated traits do not exist.

The temporal evolution of the characteristics has the consequence that archaeological cultures can be divided chronologically - often this is done by describing a " start ", a " transition " and a " final stage ". On the other hand, in a largely unbroken development is clear that the temporal boundaries between successive archaeological cultures is purely arbitrary. Frequently "smaller" breakthroughs in development, such as the appearance of a new ceramic type or omission of another as a temporal boundary between cultures are defined. A temporal minimum or maximum size does not exist so spans such as the Jōmon culture in Japan about 10,000 years the Neolithic cultures of Central Europe, however, only a few hundred years.

The spatial distribution of simultaneous features of a postulated culture is a relatively closed area of ​​distribution and a relative minimum size ( = minimum number of sites ) are crucial, but not mandatory. Again: For smooth transitions, the demarcation was arbitrary. Are, for example, in an area the characters A, B, C and D before and in an adjacent area at the same time the characteristics of C, D, E and F could be two hypothetical cultures using the spreads of the features A and B on the one hand and E and F on the other hand are postulated.

Key forms: Typical artifacts of a culture are designated according to paleontological index fossils in archeology as key forms.

A conceptually defined hierarchical structure of the archaeological cultures in spatially and temporally categories is largely absent, or is dynamically developed by the research for certain units Funnel Beaker culture is classified like in other spatial sub-groups, which - research for historical reasons - again, from individual composed mostly as cultures designated units. Attempts at renaming such widespread cultural phenomena for the purpose of clarity, such as the Bell Beaker Culture in the Bell Beaker phenomenon ( Christian Strahm ) fail mostly in the established old terms. Thus, the ratio of the terms archaeological culture and archaeological group is not clear; both are both synonymous as used to denote different hierarchical levels of detail (mostly culture group).

Nomenclature

The designation of archaeological cultures does not follow any fixed rules. They are, for example, by:

• The first locality (eg Baalberge culture, Rössen Culture, La Tène Culture )
• The moored along rivers circulation area eg ( Saône -Rhône culture, Tisza Culture ) There are also hybrid versions (eg " Starčevo culture ( place ) and Körös - Cris " (river) )

Archaeological cultural phenomena, today's country and spill over language barriers, is exacerbated that often multiple names for one and the same archaeological culture exist, then, for example, the cultural complex of the late Early to Middle Bronze Age in Lower Austria as Böheimkirchener group / culture, in southwestern Slovakia called Mad'arovce culture and Moravia as Věteřov culture.

Use of the term

The most arbitrary definition of archaeological cultures with each other and their very different in detail, illustrate sometimes more of the history of research as the research object itself influenced definitions that it is purely artificial structures which - at least a flat rate - never with ethnic groups, language groups, or " live cultures " may be equated.

The structure of the immense variety of archaeological remains in the different units is not to be dealt with clarity and conventionalization - consequently the basis for any further research in the true sense of the cultural, rather, cultural anthropological phenomena.